I'm off to New Zealand in January and am wondering whether it is worthwhile buying this lens before I go. I will probably be taking more landscapes than anything else and am planning to take my Tamron 17-50 2.8 for this which should also be fine for low light as well. I have the Tamron 18-270 which I originally bought for an all round travel lens (couldn't afford the Nikon 18-200 at the time) but not really happy with it. I really only want to take 2 lenses so my choice is 17-50 + buy the 70-300 or take the 18-270 and my 35mm prime for low light.

I have the Nikon 70-300 AF non VR, I found this lens to be very soft and I'm not happy with it. I think it's best to give it a try out at the shop with your SD card, that way you can see it on screen how it looks at home and compare it with a Tamron shot. If it suits you, then get it, the extra 30mm will not give you very much over the Tamron.

Check the price online from one of the links on the forum, it may save you hundreds.

The VR is a very good lens. The autofocus lets you catch what normally is only reserved for the equipment 5 times more expensive. It's quite soft at 300mm, but still it's very much acceptable. Up to 200 mm it's brilliant.

Maybe it's worth looking at the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di SP VC USD - it's not only cheaper but also sharper, has the newer (stronger) image stabilizer, and it's the first Tamron lens coming with an ultrasonic motor. An impressive little lens...

I've heard nothing but great things about the 70-300 VR. I'm considering one myself, but I'm waiting to see if there's a 70-200 f/4 in the future. You never know!

Up to 200mm, it's excellent and extremely sharp. Around 300mm it starts to get soft, but still very usable. AF is quick, VR is useful even though it's not the latest version, and it's a steal for the price. The only disadvantage would be the speed, f/5.6 is a bit slow, especially for a telelphoto, and you can forget about using teleconverters. It would become slow, the AF would be sluggish and the optical quality would degrade a fair bit.

@4xxxx
The optical design of the VR version is very different, the newer version is a huge improvement over the older one (but that's not to say that the older version was a slouch). Also, keep in mind that they AF speed of yours has to do with the camera, not the lens.

Got the 70-300 VR, should of brought this from the start and not got the cheap Tamron 70-300mm but it did get me through for a while.
I think the basic Nikon and Tamron 70-300 are pretty much the same thing.
The VR version is the one to get if its in your price range and the focal length you want. Not sure about the newer Tamron VC, would be interested to see a comparison.
Its a keeper for me!

Had several Nikkor tele zooms, but I've stopped changing once I bought my first 70-300VR. Liked it so much that I bought another one last month for my film body.

Not going to repeat what has already been said (but yes, it is excellent until 200mm, and very good at 300; focuses fast on new bodies like the D7000; and it is a bit dark), I would like to add that:

It is very good for macro, and will autofocus with an inexpensive Zeikos extension tube set. I use it to picture butterflies, using 40mm of extension tubes and a SB600 handheld from above-leftish (I just extend my arm).

Fantastic bokeh when wide open, at any zoom length. Even at the short end (70mm F/4) it shows excellent bokeh, while keeping the focused part razor sharp. My favorite portrait lens, even when compared to some F/1.8 I have, beacuse although they do unfocus a lot at 1.8, the *quality* of the bokeh is not so good, leaving some hard hexagonal points of light that I find disturbing - where the round blades of the 70-300VR's diaphragm produce a creamy, defocused area.

Works perfect on any dSLR, even on cheap D40s and other cameras lacking a focus motor.

The only real con is that, not only it lacks a tripod colar, it's not possible to add one. The idea is that it's VR and relative lghtweight will solve any speed problems. True in large part, but there are situations when I want a tripod, and it unbalances even a heavy D3 towards the front. Would sugest to make a tripod collar available as an optional, that is, leaving the lens with a space to attach one.

I also note that, as expected, it requires a newer body to take full advantage of the AF and VR systems. Film users should notice that it focuses much slower on my old N70 than on the state-of-the-art D7000, and VR only works on a handful of film cameras.

For the price, you can't go wrong. It's the best bang for the buck tele for FX/film; and on a cropped DX sensor like the 16MP DX sensor of the D7000, you effectivelly get the equivalent of 450MM, which is pretty long, in a lens that fits in a large coat pocket - making it the ultimate "zoo lens".